• Dear Guest, and welcome to RailUK Forums. Our non-railway discussion forums are currently restricted until members have five or more posts, and you will not be able to make a new thread or reply to an existing one in this section until you have made five or more posts elsewhere on the forum.

We must enable the economy to recover as soon as practicable

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
68,716
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
This is a huge problem, the success of the lockdown was on a scale that even the government didn't expect, and people are now fearful of returning to work and school because they've essentially been told that if you walk outside you'll essentially drop dead. The messaging needs to change, but managing to convince a public that you've feared into obeying a temporary measure too effectively that the risk is minimal whilst still announcing daily deaths 100+ will arguably be a tougher challenge than introducing the lockdown in the first place.

That will have the upside that it's unlikely any loosening will cause a "big bang" of people suddenly all over the streets. It might in lads in their 20s, but they're so low risk that it might not even matter unless they (as per one of the adverts) live with their Nan or something. (I think fear of giving it to your Nan is a very useful thing to remain in place - and maybe that's the way the promotion needs to go).

Re the lockdown I think they were expecting roughly 60% compliance and weren't expecting a load of businesses which can still legally open to voluntarily close - in particular the likes of Maccy's.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
16,869
Location
Manchester
Sorry but that's just utter nonsense. Disagree with the policies if you like, but to suggest it's all some nasty Tory plot to beat down people they don't like (who are these people, by the way?) is a fantasy.
Touchy, tocuhy are you? It's the stated objective of the policy to reduce the size of the state. That's the platform they ran on. That by definition involves scaling back on protecting people from exogenous shocks, whether that's being made redundant, becoming ill... or a global pandemic. That's what they said they were going to do. And that's what they did. It's legitimate to want to take that approach, on the basis that it's better for you personally because you're paying so much less in tax. But don't try to pretend that it wasn't a total disregard for the other costs of the policy, from the off. They knew what they were doing would cause this, and just thought it was worth it.
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,529
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
That will have the upside that it's unlikely any loosening will cause a "big bang" of people suddenly all over the streets. It might in lads in their 20s, but they're so low risk that it might not even matter unless they (as per one of the adverts) live with their Nan or something. (I think fear of giving it to your Nan is a very useful thing to remain in place - and maybe that's the way the promotion needs to go).

Re the lockdown I think they were expecting roughly 60% compliance and weren't expecting a load of businesses which can still legally open to voluntarily close - in particular the likes of Maccy's.

I'm just looking at my Facebook feed and there are people going ape about any suggestion of easements, so its a fairly safe bet that there will be a lot of people staying indoors. Workwise we've been told that there will be no changes in working patterns, so it will be working from home for the foreseeable. But if there's a promise of being able to see family & do a bit more shopping other than supermarkets then that'll make it a bit easier.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
68,716
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I'm just looking at my Facebook feed and there are people going ape about any suggestion of easements, so its a fairly safe bet that there will be a lot of people staying indoors. Workwise we've been told that there will be no changes in working patterns, so it will be working from home for the foreseeable. But if there's a promise of being able to see family & do a bit more shopping other than supermarkets then that'll make it a bit easier.

I'll be honest, I'd go for a long train ride this weekend were it permitted, and be blowed the tutters and net curtain twitchers :)

Fortunately I have a car so it's more likely I'll be able to go for a long drive instead in a relatively shorter order (but not this weekend).
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
16,869
Location
Manchester
This is a huge problem, the success of the lockdown was on a scale that even the government didn't expect, and people are now fearful of returning to work and school because they've essentially been told that if you walk outside you'll essentially drop dead. The messaging needs to change, but managing to convince a public that you've feared into obeying a temporary measure too effectively that the risk is minimal whilst still announcing daily deaths 100+ will arguably be a tougher challenge than introducing the lockdown in the first place.
You mean that self-centered power-hungry shysters aren't actually that good at keeping people safe during a major national crisis? Really? I am SHOCKED.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
16,869
Location
Manchester
Re the lockdown I think they were expecting roughly 60% compliance and weren't expecting a load of businesses which can still legally open to voluntarily close - in particular the likes of Maccy's.
Again, the government just expecting firms to continue operating at significant losses when a counterfactual is being presented which involves shutting down is merely them not knowing what they're doing.
 

Smidster

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2014
Messages
388
I tend to agree with the basic sentiment here - There will need to come a point, for me sooner rather than later, where the collective health of the nation is actually best served by moving closer to "normality" Of course the economy needs to get moving again if we are to have a "V Shaped" recovery rather than a "L" shaped one. (Some of the BoE estimates this morning look wildly optimistic to me - especially with No Deal on the way in Jan 2021) but also society must resume as frankly if you have nothing to look forward beyond work (if you still have a job) then what is the point?

Of course there will, and it is right, be changes to the way we live for a period and some of those might sustain in the long term but these must be proportionate and reasonable. It makes sense to encourage people to work remotely to prevent crush loads on trains, it is right to encourage active commuting where possible, to ensure high levels of personal hygiene and to protect the most vulnerable where possible. But we must also accept a level of personal responsibility for ourselves and those around us.

I think lots of us are going to be frustrated on Sunday - when you see things like Gyms not opening till October that is exceptionally depressing. Taking away a vital source of health and fitness predominately used by lower risk individuals doesn't seem the way to go.
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,547
So many seem to see things in binary terms, but this is rarely true.

Easing the lockdown now will allow some parts of the economy to re-open, but will mean that other parts of the economy will stay locked-down for longer. Until we get the virus properly under control, things like pubs and restaurants are likely to remain closed, or with restrictions that make them uneconomic. The hospitality industry is a significant part of the economy is some areas. Easing the lock-down will inevitably mean that it will take longer to get the virus under control - the number of new infections each day is still too high. So there is a trade-off between those who will get to re-open now, and those who will have their re-opening delayed even further.

Likewise some seem to see a binary cut-off: you either die or you don't. In practice, there is a big grey area in the middle, where you survive, but spend five weeks in hospital and months off-work recovering.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
4,044
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
I don't think the present taxes are at a high enough level to do that, no. We could consider mandatory care plans of some kind, maybe (or just whack it on general taxation)

Tell that to the middle income workers who pay 40% tax on some of their earnings. I don't think they would want to pay even higher taxes.

And even if they did, the money raised would not be ringfenced by the government; it would just go in a general pot to be spent on whatever the government decides
 

Belperpete

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2018
Messages
1,547
You don't think that a lifetime working & paying taxes should afford you some care in your later years? We are not just talking about funding your home here, but funding the care that you might need. Surely that should be something we give as part of the wider healthcare systems? Time will tell, but it may be that a fundamental part of this crisis originated in these places, which means we as a society have failed our elderly.
The current system whereby someone who has saved for a good life in retirement has that money taken off them, whereas someone who was not so prudent gets their care paid for is certainly not equitable. Of course, there are a large number who cannot afford to save for retirement. Paying for care through taxation is surely the most equitable solution.
 

Steveoh

Member
Joined
19 Aug 2015
Messages
165
There's a lot of talk here about releasing the lock down too early, too late. As we've behind some other European countries we can learn from their opening up of their economies and the impact that is having on infection rates and deaths. Are those countries suffering from overwhelming new phases of infection? If not why not, and what can we emulate?

In general people are frightened, but with a diet of 24 hour news and a rolling programme of nice juicy negative news stories what can we expect.

For what it's worth I would like to see a reopening of the economy, I would like to see my children back at school due to the effect that this lockdown is having on them. I would like to see jobs saved. I would like to see my grandmother again. Those wishes over need to be tempered with evidence. So it's a cautious reopening of the economy that I'd like to see. The virus will be with us, we will need to accept that we are mortal, but look out of those more vulnerable that oursleves - be those that suffer from a collapsed economy or those at risk from COVID.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,126
Location
The UK
For perspective, yesterday – in terms of UK casualties – was equal to 21 Ladbroke Groves.

In one day.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
68,716
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Again, the government just expecting firms to continue operating at significant losses when a counterfactual is being presented which involves shutting down is merely them not knowing what they're doing.

Maccy's would have done plenty of business on takeaways and deliveries, though.
 

SuperNova

Member
Joined
12 Dec 2019
Messages
595
Location
The North
Well

a) There might never be a vaccine, or if there is the virus will have mutated enough to render it not effective.
b) Treatments don't stop the spread
c) The virus will mutate, in fact it already has. However it won't just die out.

These are facts we are going to have to face. A log lockdown risks the economy, the economy feeds people, the economy funds the NHS. So unless you have an alternative way to feed people & support essential services with an ever reducing budget, I'd say we simply have to be realistic & deal with the fact that we are way too late to stop it & start looking at how we get help to the people that need it most instead of hiding.

I am being very realistic. You cannot simply say reopen the economy and go back to where you were before. Social Distancing is the new normal for the foreseeable future and reopening certain areas of the economy will overwhelm the NHS again as the virus spreads. The obvious being retail, hospitality and tourism. It's not a case of either or - they have to adapt or they will die.

Nothing with this virus has really changed. The drop in deaths is due to the measures in the last 6 weeks - not that it is suddenly safe to go back to normal. 6,000 of those tested in the latest daily figures were positive - the virus is still alive and kicking. Preventing large swathes of people getting this wretched virus isn't hiding either.
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
4,044
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
Sorry but that's just utter nonsense. Disagree with the policies if you like, but to suggest it's all some nasty Tory plot to beat down people they don't like (who are these people, by the way?) is a fantasy.

There is plenty of evidence, if you look around, that the Tory government want people to be dependant on the State so that they are easier to control and mandate vaccines etc.

There is also plenty of evidence that the Tory government are elitist and have prejudices against the poor, or less well-off in life. And remember, until recently, almost every successive Tory government has wanted to wash its hands off the NHS

Of course, there was a risk that the NHS would buckle under the strain of Covid-19 and the government use this as an excuse to sell-off to private hands, but clearly, there has been spare capacity
 

Envy123

Member
Joined
9 Apr 2015
Messages
500
Location
Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire
My business still needs to pay the expensive rent even though it’s closed due to the lockdown. We can still pay it as we are doing business elsewhere and online but other businesses in the same building are not so lucky.

They relied so much on physical footfall to pay the bills but now they don’t have any sort of income to pay the rent. Some have decided to put an ultimatum to the landlord and they will likely close forever.

Waiting for a vaccine or drug will take years. They do not have years. The build up of rent will likely be in the millions and they are not exactly oligarchs with tons of money.
 

Spamcan81

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
848
Location
Bedfordshire
I agree with those who say lockdown cannot last indefinitely. Apart from the economic fall out and the damage collateral to that, there is also the matter of concentrating so much on Covid-19 that deaths from other causes outstrip deaths from the virus. It's a difficult balancing act and I for one wouldn't want to be the one having to make these decisions but at some point we will have to accept that some people will continue to become infected and some of those will die. Just a matter of making sure it doesn't run riot and the NHS becomes overrun with cases.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
7,529
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I'll be honest, I'd go for a long train ride this weekend were it permitted, and be blowed the tutters and net curtain twitchers :)

Frankly when things start to relax you'll still get them going at it full pelt. I'll just smile sweetly at them and be on my way.... ;)

Fortunately I have a car so it's more likely I'll be able to go for a long drive instead in a relatively shorter order (but not this weekend).

Unfortunately neither my wife or I drive, so the trains and buses are pretty vital, though like you we will not be going anywhere this weekend. But if Big Brother Boris mandates that we can move about a bit more & some more shops can open, the we'll happily have a tootle up the Wharfe Valley for a wander around Ilkley, if for no other reason than a change of scenery. Don't get me wrong, we've some lovely walks around here, especially along the Aire up to Esholt (fans of Emmerdale Farm may know the pub & high street there), but in 8 weeks we've been limited to a very small area.

The current system whereby someone who has saved for a good life in retirement has that money taken off them, whereas someone who was not so prudent gets their care paid for is certainly not equitable. Of course, there are a large number who cannot afford to save for retirement. Paying for care through taxation is surely the most equitable solution.

Quite honestly I would be prepared to pay a bit more in taxation to have the care homes fully part of the NHS, and allow those that can save to be able to use their earnings as they best see fit.

I am being very realistic. You cannot simply say reopen the economy and go back to where you were before. Social Distancing is the new normal for the foreseeable future and reopening certain areas of the economy will overwhelm the NHS again as the virus spreads. The obvious being retail, hospitality and tourism. It's not a case of either or - they have to adapt or they will die.

Nothing with this virus has really changed. The drop in deaths is due to the measures in the last 6 weeks - not that it is suddenly safe to go back to normal. 6,000 of those tested in the latest daily figures were positive - the virus is still alive and kicking. Preventing large swathes of people getting this wretched virus isn't hiding either.

A long lockdown and failing economy will also overwhelm the NHS. I'm afraid it is not some magical entity that can just run on fresh air, falling tax revenue combined with a failing economy is the perfect storm scenario. You wouldn't just be battling this virus, you'd be battling all the increased heart attacks, cancers, diseases, accidents etc as funding became more difficult. And right now the Bank of England are grimly predicting a 14% downturn in 2020, which is apparently the worst since the 18th century. That will be devastating for the entire country, there is no getting away from this.

But if you can explain how millions of people can be supported, whilst still paying their taxes for the kind of period you seem to wish a lockdown to last, then I'll be all ears.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
23,679
Location
Redcar
Tell that to the middle income workers who pay 40% tax on some of their earnings. I don't think they would want to pay even higher taxes.

And even if they did, the money raised would not be ringfenced by the government; it would just go in a general pot to be spent on whatever the government decides

The 40% rate of income tax only applies on earnings of £50,001 or over. So when the median wage for a full time employee is around £30,000 (£585 per week) can we really describe incomes of £50,000+ as being a "middle income"?
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,146
There is plenty of evidence, if you look around, that the Tory government want people to be dependant on the State so that they are easier to control and mandate vaccines etc.

There is also plenty of evidence that the Tory government are elitist and have prejudices against the poor, or less well-off in life. And remember, until recently, almost every successive Tory government has wanted to wash its hands off the NHS

Of course, there was a risk that the NHS would buckle under the strain of Covid-19 and the government use this as an excuse to sell-off to private hands, but clearly, there has been spare capacity
We're getting a bit off topic so should perhaps start a new thread, but that's some of the most incoherent mumbo jumbo I've ever read.
The Tory's wanting people to be dependant upon the state! :lol:
What private business would want to buy a collapsed health service? As a matter of principle I couldn't actually care whether healthcare is provided directly by the state or contracted out.
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,146
The 40% rate of income tax only applies on earnings of £50,001 or over so when the median wage for a full time employee is around £30,000 (£585 per week) can we really describe incomes of £50,000+ as being a "middle income"?
I'm a 40% tax payer and am by no means wealthy. I could afford to pay a bit more tax (and am resigned that one way or another we are going to have to) but it would be more equitable to stick 1% or 2% onto the basic rate (or perhaps abolish the tax free allowance and tax that portion at 1%, stepping up to 21%, 41% etc through the tiers.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
68,716
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The 40% rate of income tax only applies on earnings of £50,001 or over. So when the median wage for a full time employee is around £30,000 (£585 per week) can we really describe incomes of £50,000+ as being a "middle income"?

They are, when you consider the extent of high incomes. Maybe there need to be 4 brackets - low, medium low, medium high and high?
 

richw

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
10,244
Location
Liskeard
Something that hasn’t been mentioned and a prime example is schools every September.
after the summer holiday with limited social gathering with large groups majority of kids come down with stomach bugs or sniffly noses because their immunity has suppressed whilst not being exposed to anyone or anything. We may well see this on a large scale!
 

trebor79

Established Member
Joined
8 Mar 2018
Messages
3,146
Something that hasn’t been mentioned and a prime example is schools every September.
after the summer holiday with limited social gathering with large groups majority of kids come down with stomach bugs or sniffly noses because their immunity has suppressed whilst not being exposed to anyone or anything. We may well see this on a large scale!
Well a review of contact tracing data from China and South Korea failed to find a single case where a child under 10 had passed COVID to someone else. So it appears that for this particular disease, although children can catch it from adults (and in the vast majority of cases have a very minor illness or are asymptomatic), they are not significant spreaders. Puzzling but there you go.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Events Co-ordinator
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
16,869
Location
Manchester
They are, when you consider the extent of high incomes.
This doesn't make sense. Ainsworth has found the figures for median wage for you. It's in the post you've quoted?

Sounds like you're talking about mean income which is kind of a ridiculous measure for our society?
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
4,044
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
Well a review of contact tracing data from China and South Korea failed to find a single case where a child under 10 had passed COVID to someone else. So it appears that for this particular disease, although children can catch it from adults (and in the vast majority of cases have a very minor illness or are asymptomatic), they are not significant spreaders. Puzzling but there you go.

richw was not talking about Covid-19. If you read his post, he mentions stomach bugs and sniffly noses. Come the autumn, colds and the like will be rife and because kids have been stuck indoors, their immune systems won't be on top par
 

Islineclear3_1

Established Member
Joined
24 Apr 2014
Messages
4,044
Location
PTSO or platform depending on the weather
What private business would want to buy a collapsed health service?

Private businesses have been queuing up to buy up lucritive parts of the National Health Service. It has happened in my sector and many others. The reason the government gives "is to free up capacity and encourage competition"

Whether or not private firms run the business well is a matter of opinion...

Bit like the railways
 

richw

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2010
Messages
10,244
Location
Liskeard
Well a review of contact tracing data from China and South Korea failed to find a single case where a child under 10 had passed COVID to someone else. So it appears that for this particular disease, although children can catch it from adults (and in the vast majority of cases have a very minor illness or are asymptomatic), they are not significant spreaders. Puzzling but there you go.
richw was not talking about Covid-19. If you read his post, he mentions stomach bugs and sniffly noses. Come the autumn, colds and the like will be rife and because kids have been stuck indoors, their immune systems won't be on top par

I was also trying to get that we’ve all been cut off from our social circles in a similar fashion to kids in school holidays. It’s inevitable we’re all going to catch various bugs not just covid when We get released in a similar fashion to all the bugs kids catch annually after the long holiday
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top